End of Nations - EU Takeover & the Lisbon Treaty

kaiser sauze wrote: »

You make valid points, but you miss the intent, and consequent meaning, behind my post completely.

You asked two questions, and used three words, would you mind telling me what on earth your point was?

Mahatma coat wrote: »

OK I thought my initial post was a Valid and clear question, Oscar then dismissed it with a one word answer, you however seem intent on latching onto small details that you can shout down without adding anything of consequence

A poster asked whether this treaty would lead to a federal eu state, and someone then demanded that someone provide evidence that the treaty explicitly contradicted this claim. The Lisbon treaty doesn't say that the EU relinquishes its claim on Canada, or isn't gone to make sea shells the eu currency, so it's absurd to suggest that it should also make explicit claims about what it doesn't do, when it's too busy trying to actually do something.

The No campaign seems set to misrepresent the Lisbon treaty or make erroneous claims about it being made unnecessarily complicated, or make claims, such as, that it will create a european federal state, and demand that any opposition voice disprove this claim, rather than prove it themselves.

I'd happily discuss some of the issues of the Lisbon treaty with the No campaign (such as eroding workers rights which I think is the most compelling reason to vote no) but the No campaign seems more interested in telling lies, and completely misrepresenting the treaty for me to give them the time of day. If you or WACi could come up with an actual section of the treaty you find fault with, bring it up and have at, don't just try and convince people to vote no, through lies deceit and subterfuge. Hey isn't that what you guys think the bad guys do anyway?

Who is behind the monkey posters looking for a no vote? Anyone know?

i dont want to be drawn into your debates, this treaty isnt imprtant on its own, its just amendments to oher treaties...those treaties are the real problems for me as i dont want to see a European superstate, i dont want it.

I see each treaty as bringing us closer to losing our soverignty, i havent bothered watching this video, dunno if i will tbh. I dont enjoy scaremongering documentaries regardless of which side they are on as when i go and do a little research myself i often prove them wrong and it seems like a big waste of my time watching these sometimes 3+ hour documentarys

In the business sense, unless we are close to Europe we are in trouble. But for me i will never want a similar system to the united states of america. Regardless of whether these treaties state them in plain english it is what the yare builing towards, step by step. slowly but surely

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Im not sure I think they could be from some unanimous sourse but at least I find the NO voters have a good sense of humor unlike the Yes campaigners.

Yes because the vital thing in ratifying a complex treaty between 27 nations is a sense of humour, and not a grasp of the actual facts.

It's nice the No campaign isn't engaged in wild fearmongering.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/editor_tupp/2455689447/

Or this

http://www.flickr.com/photos/daraghot/2493732013/in/pool-769144@N21

http://www.flickr.com/photos/editor_tupp/2494470329/in/pool-769144@N21

Nice to see a level campaign fought on the facts.

oscarBravo wrote: »

The treaty would create no such position. The existing position of President of the European Council, often referred to as the "President-in-Office", which is rotated every six months between the member states, would instead be elected every two and a half years by a qualified majority of the European Council.

In other words, the treaty converts an existing role from an unelected to an elected one.

Next.

It undermines equality between nations to replace equal rotation with so-called 'election' by Qualified Majority Voting. QMV under Lisbon allows 4 countries with a combined 35%+ of the EU's population to form a blocking minority, effectively allowing 4 Big States to veto any candidate they don't like. It's hard to imagine an Irish candidate holding the Council Presidency under the new system.

marco_polo wrote: »

Not sure if you don't know or are deliberately playing silly buggers with the facts, however QMV it allows a block of four countries to form a blocking minority reagrdless of the combineed population and this aspect of QMV is widely accepted to be for the benift of the smaller nations.

Not true. The system will require both 4 countries and that they encompass over 35% of the EU population to form a blocking-minority.

marco_polo wrote: »

TEU 16 (4) is used for most votes and a blocking vote under this method consists of four countries. There is no population requirement.

TFEU 238 (3) (a) is used for votes under enhanced cooperation only. To make a blocking minority there must be countries representing 35% of the population represented by the enhanced cooperation group plus one other member.

I'm talking about the voting system under Lisbon. You are talking about the status-quo. There is a population-requirement under Lisbon - an explicit one at that. The blocking-minority is 4 member states including over 35% of the EU's population. The relevant section is Article 16 of the TEU as amended by Lisbon:

Article 16, TEU wrote:

Article 16
1. The Council shall, jointly with the European Parliament, exercise legislative and budgetary functions. It shall carry out policy-making and coordinating functions as laid down in the Treaties.
2. The Council shall consist of a representative of each Member State at ministerial level, who may commit the government of the Member State in question and cast its vote.
3. The Council shall act by a qualified majority except where the Treaties provide otherwise.
4. As from 1 November 2014, a qualified majority shall be defined as at least 55 % of the members of the Council, comprising at least fifteen of them and representing Member States comprising at least 65 % of the population of the Union.
A blocking minority must include at least four Council members, failing which the qualified majority shall be deemed attained.
The other arrangements governing the qualified majority are laid down in Article 238(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

As a qualified-majority is 55% of the countries including 65% of the EU's population, and as a blocking minority must include 4 countries, that means that a blocking-minority is 4 member states with over 35% of the EU's population.